Unconditional election: what are we all doing here on earth?

[The_Reformist]

If God did not die for all, but only for some, then we are naturally inclined to ask "On what basis did He choose the elect?, what was his basis for selecting Fred but not Joe" It is commonly claimed that God did not take any account whatsoever of the attributes of Fred or Joe. And yet it is also argued that his choice was not purely random or arbitrary - he did not "pick Fred's name out of a hat". So, some claim that God chose Fred (but not Joe) in such a manner as to not take into account any of Fred's "attributes" or "properties", and yet the choice was not arbitrary.

This does not seem like a viable position to hold.

Yeah, I think you may well be right about this. At least, I can't think of a way that unconditional election wouldn't be random. Do we have any Calvinists around that are able to respond to what Drew is saying here?

Drew isn't making a distinction between God not electing based upon merits and God electing according to his will. Yes, from our point of view, we have no clue as to why God would choose Fred and pass over Joe. It seems arbitrary to us. Does it follow that God must have no reason to choose Fred and pass over Joe? I don't think so, unless, of course, you have a complete understanding of God's will.

 

[mutzrein]

Drew isn't making a distinction between God not electing based upon merits and God electing according to his will. Yes, from our point of view, we have no clue as to why God would choose Fred and pass over Joe. It seems arbitrary to us. Does it follow that God must have no reason to choose Fred and pass over Joe? I don't think so, unless, of course, you have a complete understanding of God's will.

Which is why I asked in an earlier post, "does anyone know the mind of God here?" There's a lot of conjecture but that's about it.

 

[jgredline]

If God did not die for all, but only for some, then we are naturally inclined to ask "On what basis did He choose the elect?, what was his basis for selecting Fred but not Joe" It is commonly claimed that God did not take any account whatsoever of the attributes of Fred or Joe. And yet it is also argued that his choice was not purely random or arbitrary - he did not "pick Fred's name out of a hat". So, some claim that God chose Fred (but not Joe) in such a manner as to not take into account any of Fred's "attributes" or "properties", and yet the choice was not arbitrary.

This does not seem like a viable position to hold.

Yeah, I think you may well be right about this. At least, I can't think of a way that unconditional election wouldn't be random. Do we have any Calvinists around that are able to respond to what Drew is saying here?

Drew isn't making a distinction between God not electing based upon merits and God electing according to his will. Yes, from our point of view, we have no clue as to why God would choose Fred and pass over Joe. It seems arbitrary to us. Does it follow that God must have no reason to choose Fred and pass over Joe? I don't think so, unless, of course, you have a complete understanding of God's will.

This topic on election basically comes down to Calvinism vs Armenism
This debate has been going on for hunderds of years and it continues.
I have been studing this for the past 5 years and I believe the truth is in the middle. The best article I have read that makes the most sense to me is this one. I don't attend calvary chapel but I do enjoy and have learned much from the Calvary chapel pastors. Here is the link
http://www.calvarychapel.com/?show=Reso ... anismandth

 

[Drew]

Drew isn't making a distinction between God not electing based upon merits and God electing according to his will. Yes, from our point of view, we have no clue as to why God would choose Fred and pass over Joe. It seems arbitrary to us. Does it follow that God must have no reason to choose Fred and pass over Joe? I don't think so, unless, of course, you have a complete understanding of God's will.

Hello Reformist (and welcome to the forum) and others:

I actually am suggesting that the choice of Fred over Joe must be arbitrary, even for God, if it is not based on "inherent characteristics". I infer that you think that this means I claim to a knowledge of God's will. I do not think I would want to make such a claim, but I will claim that we humans, and I am trying to choose my words with exceeding care, simply cannot legitimately claim something to be true of God, if that "something" is utterly incoherent and meaningless for us, as I believe the doctrine that I quoted from the Westminster Confession actually is.

I have probably contradicted myself already. When I said in the above para that "the choice must be arbitrary even for God", I should qualify that statement with the assertion that we do not know God "directly", instead we have an internal "mental model" of God. This should not be seen as a dramatic or even unorthodox statement - the universe seems to put together in such a way that the totality of each individual's experience of the world is necessarily represented mentally - there is no "direct access" that is not mediated by mental representations.

Of what relevance is such a "philosophical" excursion? Well, I think that we cannot meaningfully attribute something to God that we cannot conceive of as being true. And I stand by my argument (already provided in an earlier post) that we cannot conceive of (make sense of) selection that is neither based on internal properties nor is random - there is no alternative that we can make sense of.

Because of this, declarations such as the snippet from the Westminster Confession are essentially without content for us - they cannot tell us anything about God. To me, the claim from the Westminster Confession is like the following claim: "I weigh 180 lbs and I also weigh 200 lbs".

So in a sense, I am questioning whether it is even possible for us to make declarations about God that cannot be made sense of "from our point of view". We must instead remain uncommitted.

 

[undertow]

Yes, from our point of view, we have no clue as to why God would choose Fred and pass over Joe. It seems arbitrary to us. Does it follow that God must have no reason to choose Fred and pass over Joe? I don't think so, unless, of course, you have a complete understanding of God's will.

I don't think it is merely a matter of it seeming arbitrary to us, but that what is claimed is a logical contradiction, as Drew suggests.

 

[The_Reformist]

Drew,

If we are to only build doctrine around what has coherenence to our mind, we must exclude doctrines such as the hypostatic union and the trinity. You seem to be coming to scripture presupposing that only things which are coherent to our minds can be true of God, can you explain to me the coherence, to us, in believeing that one being can exist simoutaneously in three persons? No, of course not. We don't believe those doctrines because they make sense to us, we believe them because they're taught in scripture.

It's very clear that a doctrine like the trinity is "completely incoherent", to us, yet we still believe it. With that said, I must return to my original point. That is, we're dealing with an incomprehensible God, and all we know about him is what he has revelealed to us through his Word.

Now tell me,"if that "something" is utterly incoherent and meaningless for us", but is revealed to us through God's word, does that make it utterly incoherent and meaningless to God?

 

[JM]

Good point Reformist.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

If we are to only build doctrine around what has coherenence to our mind, we must exclude doctrines such as the hypostatic union and the trinity. You seem to be coming to scripture presupposing that only things which are coherent to our minds can be true of God, can you explain to me the coherence, to us, in believeing that one being can exist simoutaneously in three persons? No, of course not. We don't believe those doctrines because they make sense to us, we believe them because they're taught in scripture.

It's very clear that a doctrine like the trinity is "completely incoherent", to us, yet we still believe it. With that said, I must return to my original point. That is, we're dealing with an incomprehensible God, and all we know about him is what he has revelealed to us through his Word.

Now tell me,"if that "something" is utterly incoherent and meaningless for us", but is revealed to us through God's word, does that make it utterly incoherent and meaningless to God?

Hi Reformist:

It is possible that I need to explain myself further. I am most definitely not "coming to scripture presupposing that only things which are coherent to our minds can be true of God". I hope that is post will clarify this.

If any doctrine were really "completely incoherent" to us, it would not even be possible for us to believe it. I submit that you (and many others , I grant you) are not being careful enough in understanding the criteria that an assertion about "the way things are" has to satisfy in order to be "knowledge". Knowledge has to be coherent to us, otherwise it cannot be knowledge. Why do I say this?

Let's say that I claim that something is the case about God - that He has attribute x. If it turns that out that attribute x is incoherent to us, then we are really adding zero knowledge to our description of God. God may indeed factually have all kinds of attributes that are beyond the reach of our minds. But those attributes will not even be expressible by us - if something is beyond the reach of our mind, we obviously cannot express it.

Let's take the Trinity - obviously this concept is either coherent to us or it is incoherent. If it is coherent we can express something about it. Perhaps what we express is an approximation of the factual truth about God's nature, but the fact that it is at least coherent means that we have a partial grasp of something.

If the concept, upon analysis, were found to be incoherent, it would contain zero usable information for us and therefore not be worth even hanging onto. The only reason that the Trinity survives is that it must be seen as at least partially coherent by some people.

And it is precisely my argument that the statement in the Westminster confession is incoherent.

What I am saying is that truly incoherent statements are equivalent to gibberish (e.g. blah blah blah) when it comes to expressing information that is any way useful to us. So if any claim about God were to be shown to be incoherent, that claim contains no information about God. Something else might be true of God, but that something else is not what we are talking about.

I challenge you to present to me a truly incoherent statement and show how it adds any useful knowledge to our description of the world. And a statement (made by us humans) about God has to be useful to us in thinking about God, understanding His nature, etc. in order for it to add anything at all to our picture of God. And incoherent statements never "add" information.

Here is an incoherent statement that is incoherent in the same way as the claim in the Westminster Confession:

"A man with no senses to access the outside world intelligently chooses painting A over painting B in respect to achieving some objective"

A little analysis reveals that such a man would precisely zero information at his disposal and would therefore have no basis for selecting a painting (unless he chose randomly). So such a claim is really a bunch of words strung together in a grammatically correct sentence, but it is a sentence devoid of meaning.

When you say:

We don't believe those doctrines because they make sense to us, we believe them because they're taught in scripture

you seem to be creating a false dichotomy - if some concept reputedly taught in the scriptures didn't really make sense to us, we could not in any legitimate way be actually "taught" that concept - for to be taught concept x requires that concept x make sense to us. Remember we are the ones talking about God having such and such an attribute.

 

[Relic]

One most important factor is being ignored in this thread. it's called "freedom of choice". Is it not?

Has anyone even considered the fact that God gave us all our own will, the freedom to choose?

God gave us the freedom to choose what path we walk, who or what we follow after, whatever we become depends on the spirit we hold onto. FREE CHOICE.

Predestination doesn't mean that we don't have the freedom to turn it down.

Lucifer was predestined to be head over all the angels in heaven, But what did he CHOOSE? HE CHOSE to go against the destination God offered to him as the top notch angel in heaven. Satan chose his own destination. Satan chose his own course, did he not? And in so doing he took 1/3 rd of the angels with him. thereby, being thrown out of the "kingdom of heaven" (The Heavenly, the place of God's predestination (preferred will) for all those who are HIS) .


The BIBLE is Clear on the what we are doing here and what our destinations are. IT IS a matter of FREEDOM OF CHOICE. We just can't escape the absolute laws of order that are set in place by GOD.

Can you make evil good? No man can do that.
But by the grace and mercy of the Lord God, we find transformation, an OVERCOMING of EVIL, THROUGH The HOLY SPIRIT IN HIS SON. Christ Jesus.


Simple. We were made in His image. If we choose to transgress that, then what do you expect?

Who says we are predestined to evil? NOT GOD.
It is by choice that determines where we are going, or not.

It is all our choice. God can knock us on our butts and strike us blind to rattle us to our senses of what is holy and what is not, what is a wise choice and what is not, But the ultimate choice is given to us. It is by the GRACE of GOD that we HAVE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.

And it is by the GRACE OF GOD that we FIND HIS WILL OVER our own 'Carnal' minded self-ish-ness. Satan chose self-ish-ness. Jesus chose to GIVE OF HIMSELF. FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

===========



Maybe a little less philosophy and a little more of just listening to the word of God, (faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.) then it just may be some people might start to get to know more about the reasons God put us on this earth and they might get to know a little bit more about the character of God through reading and concentrating on HIS TRUTH, instead of all that "philosophy" Speculating.

And God is...... Spirit. What is the Character of the Spirit?
Are we not given free will of adventure Or do you think God wanted to create a bunch of Robots who have no freedom to choose? We either choose wisely through HIS GODLY "holy" counsel, or we choose to ignore and learn the hard way, or not learn at all but run around in circles, such as that much of following the course of philosophy will do.


God placed us on this planet to be IN HIS IMAGE. It is His will that we do so, but sad to say.... many people CHOOSE to IGNORE the WILL God has for us. HENCE, EVE and ADAM "turned away from God" they ignored HIS WILL FOR THEM. They were predestined to live in a garden of Eden. but they CHOSE, to listen to the deceiver instead of GOD's HOLY advice. Consequences are of the absolute laws. When people try to tamper with the absolutes God set in place.... well, the bible is full of examples of what happens. "ILL" WILL.... Choices. Truth or consequences, why can't people see that it is our choices that lead us to where we end up? :roll:




Drew and some of you others here,

You seem to be having a field day with the "philosophical", "Intellectual" mind set. No need to intellectualize it so much. God's Word is simply put for us to understand. It's when we "philosophy and intellectualize" too much, that we tend towards too much pondering on vain speculations, just for the purpose of impressing with words complex. "Too smart for your own britches" :
Seems to me you are relying too much on it instead of the actual Word of God in scriptures. Do you read your bible on a daily basis? What version are you reading? I do hope it is not some kind of a New Age Liberal Philosophical one?

Too much philosophy will blow your mind, not much less than drugs fry your brain. :-? Too much relying on philosophy will take you in circles not much different than a dog chasing it's own tail, and too much philosophy will take you on paths that only lead to more confusion and more pondering than onto the path that God says to follow,(which by the way, is the path that will bring understanding) .

It appears that the subject of this thread is...... drifting onto the philosophical ponderings rather than what Scriptures says on the matter.

To find the answer to the question posed in the original post......


Try reading the first few chapters of Genesis.


God wants us all to be in his image, to be fruitful, subdue, have dominion.

Jesus is our example, our salvation from the whiles of the devil, that serpent who chose to deceive.

. What is so difficult and complex about knowing why we are here and what our "predestination" is as opposed to "our FREEDOM TO CHOSE OUR PATHS? WE DO have FREE WILL to either turn towards God and follow HIS WILL, or we have the FREE WILL to ignore HIS "holy" sanctified, set aside, special blessing for those who CHOOSE so. Thereby, they who ignore God are followers of satan (anti- Christ) .


Some people just make such a big to hoot out of trying to figure out what the Word of God is trying to communicate? :-?

Genesis is clear.....
We are created in his image, to be like him, to be blessed IN HIS GLORY.

Freedom of choice, comes into the scene and messes up what God wants for us. NO different than how rebellious children are to their parents.

We are all children of God.... Growing UP. What we become depends on the choices we make.

Think about it... Every parent has a predestination in mind for their own children..... BUT do the children always follow the plans that the parents have in mind for them? :-?

FREEDOM OF CHOICE.


So then.....


Choose wisely.

WILL we obey? Depends.... How stubborn do you choose to be?


The whole premise is to follow after the loving, giving, SPIRIT of the HOLY Spirit.
.

It's all a matter of choice. Predestination is what God wants for us to follow. OUR Destination... IS UP TO US .

Have a good day.

Choose Life.

=======

 

[undertow]

One most important factor is being ignored in this thread. it's called "freedom of choice". Is it not?

Has anyone even considered the fact that God gave us all our own will, the freedom to choose?

God gave us the freedom to choose what path we walk, who or what we follow after, whatever we become depends on the spirit we hold onto. FREE CHOICE.

The thread was actually started as a question to those that believe in unconditional election. Freedom of choice isn't especially relevant in this thread.

The BIBLE is Clear on the what we are doing here and what our destinations are. IT IS a matter of FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

This doesn't get us very far. You think the Bible is clear that we have freedom, other people think the Bible is clear that we DO NOT have freedom.

Drew and some of you others here,

You seem to be having a field day with the "philosophical", "Intelectual" mind set. No need to intellectualize it so much. God's Word is simply put for us to understand. It's when we "philosiphy and intellecualize" too much, that we tend towards too much pondering on vain speculations, just for the purpose of impressing with words complex. "Too smart for your own britches" :
Seems to me you are relying too much on it instead of the actual Word of God in scriptures. Do you read your bible on a daily basis? What version are you reading? I do hope it is not some kind of a New Age Liberal Philosophical one?

Too much philosophy will blow your mind, not much less than drugs fry your brain. :-?

Yes, certain Christians around here may as well be smoking a crack pipe. Do they not realize how damaging it is to use their brain? I know one thing for sure, Relic isn't going to take that risk!

 

[mutzrein]

I don’t want to sidetrack this thread but need to say this first.

I don’t align myself with Calvinism or any other ‘ism’ for that matter mainly because I believe what I believe without the knowledge of what others say. I think it is a dangerous thing to adhere to a particular label because those who look at the label have a pre-conception of what that label means. I even have difficulty with the term ‘Christian’ because there are so many thoughts out there as to what a Christian is or should be.

So . . . I believe in election BUT I also believe in free will.

And this is what I mean.

God chooses to have children. Before a person is born there is absolutely no decision made by that person as to their birth. As it is in the natural, so it is in the spiritual. As my folks elected to have me as their child, so has God. Man does not choose to be born again, so in this respect I believe in election.

And, as God’s children we have received life. It is this gift of life that we are responsible for, and so then, our free will becomes an element in our salvation.

In regard to ‘isms’ there are many who hold to ‘unconditional election’ and ‘once saved always saved’ premises. My view is that the gift of life (the Spirit of God by which we are born again and which is the promise of eternal life) will never be lost. However, salvation is something that man is ‘working’ toward once he has become a child of God. I don’t mean a salvation by ‘works’ in terms of the deeds we do, but walking in the Spirit, by faith in the righteousness of Christ. This is truly ‘working’ out our own salvation with fear and trembling.

And it is in this that we bring glory to God.